Second Apple v. Samsung Patent Trial Ends With A Partial Victory For Apple, But Far From What It Wanted
from the fizzled-out dept
The second round of Apple v. Samsung patent battles hasn't received quite the same attention, and it appears that it mostly fizzled out with the jury as well. In a late Friday verdict, Apple technically won on two patents which the jury found Samsung infringed. However, three others it found that Samsung did not infringe. Meanwhile, Apple was found to have infringed on one of Samsung's patents. Apple had asked for $2.2 billion -- but the jury awarded it just $119.6 million. Still a significant sum, but only 5% of what Apple was seeking. As Joe Mullin notes:While Apple "won" this trial, Apple simply lost on damages. There's the best way to describe a number that's such a low proportion of what it was seeking.Now, can we go back to actually competing in the marketplace? Eh, doubtful. This isn't over yet.
From the trial's very beginning, Apple lawyers said that the whole purpose of Samsung presenting two patents of its own and asking for the "small" sum of $6 million was a cynical one: to convince the jurors that patents aren't worth that much.
If that was Samsung's goal—today's verdict is "mission accomplished." Considering litigation at this level is something of a war of attrition; Samsung has shown that it can basically fight Apple to a standstill. It's doubtful that $120 million would cover Apple's legal bill for even this litigation, much less the whole worldwide patent war it launched.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Apple announces it's latest release...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Apple announces it's latest release...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Apple Is Neglecting Its Business
Android and other Linux-based systems are conquering the world, and Apple (along with Microsoft and Intel) really have no idea how to respond to this.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Apple Is Neglecting Its Business
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Apple Is Neglecting Its Business
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Apple Is Neglecting Its Business
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Apple Is Neglecting Its Business
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
6 million? That's it? Those dirty thieves at Apple should be imprisoned for life!
Samsung should have at least asked for (presses the generate button on random number generator) ... Two trillion dollars!!! (Dr. Evil look).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Judging by the amount the jury awarded, I'd say it was a gambit well played, and more than paid off.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Here it's not hard to see that patents aren't really doing society much good. These companies aren't releasing new products because they want patents and they certainly aren't looking to patents to figure out how to build these products (they don't need patents) so the patents are essentially socially useless. The only thing they are resulting in is getting lawyers rich which directs money away from more productive and innovative endeavors and towards litigation.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
See, with Samsung's patent it picked a relatively smaller number. With Apple's patents it picked a relatively larger number.
You must also consider the range of numbers that it chooses from. If it chooses between zero and a trillion the majority of numbers are going to be larger than if it chooses between zero and a thousand. That's not being 'rigged' that's just giving it more variables to choose among. If anything allowing for larger numbers in the range of numbers to choose from is less rigged because now more numbers have an opportunity to be chosen at random. No number left behind, every number has an equal opportunity to be chosen. If I have it choose between one and a thousand that would be unfair to all the numbers higher than a thousand and that would be rigged.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Rock solid priorities. Sandstone to be specific
Boy, it sure is a good thing they're so focused on 'protecting' themselves that they're willing to throw so much money at the problem, I mean, can you imagine what a waste it would have been had they put that money to other uses, like, I dunno, research and development?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Rock solid priorities. Sandstone to be specific
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Rock solid priorities. Sandstone to be specific
What Apple does is figure out which of the dozen products has the best chance for getting traction, then they improve it for a year or two totally in secret, and then they make a big spectacular launch for just that single product that all fanboys then lock onto.
That's the actual problem about their patent sprees: they don't actually have technology which they developed to lock onto. They focus their patents of the 1-2 years of finetuning they did.
And they are right that they are in part responsible for creating a market focused on a particular product (that has been basically available before). But that does not mean that they get to own that market by law.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
jury pool
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
i fixed the article
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
You see she does have rounded corners
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: a victory for Samsung would've opened the FRAND market to double-dipping
Pity their product-development teams are no longer as smart...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: a victory for Samsung would've opened the FRAND market to double-dipping
This whole thing basically stems from a certain 3G antenna used in the CDMA version of the iPhone 4...You see, Infineon was the designer of that 3G Antenna...and they were allowed to sell those chips to Apple as wholesale. That meant Apple didn't have to pay royalties on the standard essential patents used to design the chips...Specifically, all Samsung did was write the optional BIOS embedded into the logic of those chips. That equated to less than 1/1000% of the patent...
I do have it on good authority that Apple does in fact have a metalergy patent for the graphite-based heat sinks it uses in its mobile devices to dissipate heat. Hardware design might not change externally by design, but the arangement and guts of the devices do.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
re
Litigation is never about justice, but about a perception of the application of the law. On criminal side, the innocence project reminds us that juries and judges often get the verdict wrong. In civil litigation, especially on patent on patent trolling, it's never about right and wrongs, but getting most out with very little effort. Apple see the cost of lawyers and litigation fees as cost of doing business-not even a chump change.
Apple also know that they could not careless about those who cannot afford iphones. They have conceded the low cost smartphone market segments to Android. Just like GOP with Tea Party folks, this is all about getting the fanbois and fangirls excitement notched up so that they can keep them loyal and keep pumping money into ieverything.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: re
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: re
In cases like this it is more like emperors fighting to see who extracts tribute from the most people. Their chosen armies are lawyers, and the field of battle is the court, and the objective is to defeat the opponent, rather than get compliance with the law.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
These patents are so fucking obvious they should never have been granted. Apple's posturing about their brilliantly innovative designs rings hollow, and, together with its portrayal of Samsung as an mindless copycat, comes across like the schoolyard whining of a spoiled brat.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Apple to English translator
translation:
"Moooooom... Samsung is copying meeeee!"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
cheeky bastards
Mike, you are a genius. LOL .
So Apple blaims their crappy product lost sales because samsung copied something ? NAAAAH. Samsung was doing alright even without plagiating. I'm not taking sides, I use NONE of their products both apple and samsung, but apple i acting like a drama queen haha.
I really tend NOT to mention apple and its crappy products when I write about gadget news
Too bad Samsung paid the bill.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]